Brocklebank's MAIHAR (II)

Stuart Smith
5th April 2005, 16:44
Could anybody please post some information on MAIHAR 11 1968.
Was she built especially for Brocklebank, if not then for whom and under what name?. Where was she built and what became of her? What motive power did she have etc.

Apart from the photo that I have posted are there any more out there?

Stuart Smith

R798780
5th April 2005, 17:29
Designed and built by Brocklebanks. Someone has posted an account of the design and ordering process, but can't get the brain to attach a name, and I can't find the article today. I have posted pics of Maihar on the Brocklebank forum. Built in Eriksbergs and or Lindholem in Sweden (Gothenberg). If/when I get scannered up I have one of Mahsud to post.

Motive power was two V14 medium speed non reversing Pielstiks at 450rpm geared to a single shaft at 115 rpm, and also to either of two shaft alternators. Variable pitch propellor controlled by KaMeWa system. If they were the same as the Eriksbergs tankers she had a 5 cylinder alternator for when the shaft alternator wasn't running. Used to sound like a bofors gun shooting seagulls when the board was changed for manoeuvring, or for deep sea after manoeuvring.

Marcus Cardew
5th April 2005, 20:27
I remember that one or other of the Maihar or Mahsud punched itseld into the passenger terminal in Columbo, allegedly when the CP propellor had failed safe to full ahead, although scruched back to the collision bulkhead, I think she made it to Singapore for drydocking......

R798780
5th April 2005, 22:11
Spud Wood's first command. According to hearsay at the time they "clutched in" with the KaMeWa inactive, the pitch control lever would be at zero, but the propellor would lapse to Pitch 10 ahead, took about an hour after the KaMeWa hydraulics were powered off (normal full sea speed was pitch 8 or 8). Mahsud I think but that bit's hazy now

Santos
5th April 2005, 22:28
I have read that Maihar 11 was sold to Panama in 1978 and re named Garnet, but other than that I dont know any more I am afraid.

Santos.

Stuart Smith
6th April 2005, 09:14
Thanks guys for all that info, Maihar compartment in brain now filled and filed away for another day.
Knew I could rely on SN boys.
Stuart

flyer682
6th April 2005, 10:02
If you can fit just a little more in......... There used to be another photo of MAIHAR (or it could have been MAHSUD) in the Photo Gallery before the crash that was similar to yours, although that one was a bow shot. I can't remember who posted it though. Also another couple of smaller ones in a Brock thread of MAIHAR/MAHSUD when on the Japan - USA run, posted I think by Chief Officer Hugh.

japottinger
7th April 2005, 20:52
She was designed by Y-Ard of Glasgow, a consultancy born out of Yarrow.

japottinger
7th April 2005, 20:58
PS. None of these accidents would never have happened on the ssshteam driven Maihar (I) !
Serves them right for building a grease driven engined ship.
(Tongue in cheek, maybye!)

R798780
7th April 2005, 21:02
Designed and built by Brocklebanks. Someone has posted an account of the design and ordering process, but can't get the brain to attach a name, and I can't find the article today. I have posted pics of Maihar on the Brocklebank forum. Built in Eriksbergs and or Lindholem in Sweden (Gothenberg). If/when I get scannered up I have one of Mahsud to post.

Motive power was two V14 medium speed non reversing Pielstiks at 450rpm geared to a single shaft at 115 rpm, and also to either of two shaft alternators. Variable pitch propellor controlled by KaMeWa system. If they were the same as the Eriksbergs tankers she had a 5 cylinder alternator for when the shaft alternator wasn't running. Used to sound like a bofors gun shooting seagulls when the board was changed for manoeuvring, or for deep sea after manoeuvring.
Found it. It is Jim Pottinger's info under your pic.

drgguest
7th April 2008, 02:13
My father was the Brocklebank rep for the building on the Maihar and its sister and 2 tankers (luminous and lustrous) in Gothenberg between 1965 and 1968. I don't remember too much about it being only 5 when we came home.

docgk
7th April 2008, 09:49
I think I was in sister ship MAHSUD as 2nd R/O when we had news of MAIHAR's incident in Colombo. I think we had the info via GWZM sched. Seem to remember the info was that the generator went off the board while approaching the outer harbour and she rammed the harbour wall as the KaMeWa failed to the 'feather' state at a critical point. There is some memory of the Arkas failing too and the rudder going hard over - though I can't be sure about it. On MAHSUD, whilst in mid-Pacific, some-one put the kettle on in the chartroom, blew the trips and the Arkas did indeed go hard over. Quite alarming to be suddenly going in circles! Can anyone confirm this sort of thing could happen with the Arkas? ( or was the kettle just circumstantial evidence of some other failing?)

gwzm
7th April 2008, 19:15
Hi Stuart,

The info from Duncan Haws's book for Maihar 2 (& Mahsud 3):
B: 1968 A/B Lindholmens Varv., Gothenburg. T 9,416g, 5,790n, 11,659 dwt.
D: 505/153.92oa, 470/143.26 x 63.3/19.29 x 37.5/11.43. Dft 28.3/8.62
E: Sgl scr, cont. pitch KaMeWa type, oil. 2 x vee 14cyl Pielstick, 4s.sa, srg, 11,600shp, 18 -1/2 kts. By builder. Cont pitch bow thruster. Engine bridge operated. Crew 14 + 42 Asian.
H: Steel, 2 = pt 3rd no 2 hold. F 47/14.32. P 92/28.04. 9 hatches (1.3.3.1.1)/5 holds.
C; 631,000/17868 cu g, 20,000/566.3 ref. Cranes: 5 x 5 ton. Derricks (Hallen swinging type; operated by a joystick from the deck console: 2 x 5 ton, 2 x 10 ton, 1 x 25 ton, and 1 x 60 ton. Transom stern. White hull, blue band, blue waterline over a dark red underbody, Side loaded refrigerated space. Press button hatch openers. Bathing pool.
1968 May: The first ship built abroad since 1774 and the final vessels actually built to the order of Thos & Jno Brocklebank but delivered to Cunard-Brocklebank Ltd. Both were designed by Yarrow Admiralty Research Department. Built for the newly developed US Gulf ports - South Africa - Indian service. Delivered in white hull livery.
1971 Aug: Taken over by Trafalgar House Investments Ltyd.
1978 March: For sale in the river Fal. Sold to Garnet Maritime S.A., Panama. Renamed Garnet.
1981 Dec 8: The ship was in collision with the tanker Molaventure (Mojo S.A.) in Port Said Roads and both had to be beached. Abandoned semi-submerged; towed out 70 miles and sunk.

I also have a Sea Breezes article about one of these sisters somewhere in my archives. Send me a PM if you'd like me to scan it for you.

John/gwzm

Derek Roger
7th April 2008, 20:42
As said in previous threads Mahsud and Maihar were built by Lindholmens in Gothenburg . The Pielstick engines were built at the Eriksberg yard . The drive was through a Renk Gearbox to KaMeWa CP propeller . They were both Unmanned Machinery Space vessels .
There were two shaft alternators which could be used for main power generation or to supply the Bow Thruster. The shaft alternators could be used whether the engine was clutched in to the CP prop or not .

Port operation was effected by 2 of 3 Paxman diesel alternator sets which were the worst sets I ever sailed with .
Deck gear included A S E A Deck Cranes .

I stood bye Mahsud in Sweden and sailed on her a total of 9 times ( 6 as Ch/Eng )

I sailed on Maihar twice as second and once as Chief .

In 71 while I was 2 nd Engineer we had a gear box explosion and ensuing fire in the engine room in Tokyo Bay en route to Kobe .

I will post the complete story in the engineering section at a later time .

The first ship to stand bye us was the ex Brocklebank vessel Maidan . We were towed to Yokohama for repairs .

It was also Maihar who put the bows back 22 ft in Colombo ; Sailed to Hong Kong for repairs as I recollect .

Regards Derek

Don A.Macleod
7th April 2008, 21:57
Yes! docgk,I remember very well the kettle sending the ship veering to starboard.Got up to the bridge(12-4 watch) and the 2/O informed me he had plugged the kettle into a socket in the chart room and things went crazy.Fortunately I knew where the supply breaker was(outside the Ch.Engs.room). Breaker had tripped, reset it and we were on our way. Of course I'd unplugged the kettle by then.This socket had been somehow connected into the Arkas circuit. That was soon fixed!
This was only one of many faults encountered on Maihar and Mahsud in which baffling faults occured.
Incidentally if my memory serves me it was Mahsud which had the prang in Colombo.
Donald

Don A.Macleod
7th April 2008, 22:15
Agree with you John that the Maihar was sunk as you say.The Sea Breezes article was the one by Terry Scarret probably, I also have it in my archives (I think) but it is a few years ago now.
Donald

Derek Roger
7th April 2008, 23:15
My father was the Brocklebank rep for the building on the Maihar and its sister and 2 tankers (luminous and lustrous) in Gothenberg between 1965 and 1968. I don't remember too much about it being only 5 when we came home.

Last time I saw your Dad Geoff was in the Udny Arms ( Newburgh ) with Allan Atack many moons ago . Allan also stood by in Sweden with your father ; as did Jake Donnelly .

Regards Derek


There is a photograph of the MV.Mahsud in my Gallery if your care to look .

drgguest
8th April 2008, 21:58
Derek,

Good to remember the Udny (Dad lived there for a year back in 1972). I remember Alan vividly and some of the other visitors to Scotland over the years.

Dave

Tony Selman
10th April 2008, 11:33
Yes I remember the kettle incident very well. Docgk was 2R/O and on watch if I remember correctly and I was 1R/O doing something else (in the bar?) and suddenly we heeled over quite rapidly to starboard. I went galloping up to the Radio Room to warn Graham (Docgk) to be ready in case of something dramatic happening and then went on to the bridge. Roger Newton 2/O had indeed plugged the kettle in and tripped the breakers. That Arkas was something of a pain and remember Docgk and I spending many hours on the Japanese coast trying to fix a baffling fault, a task rendered substantially more difficult by having no manual or circuit diagrams.

I also recall that very shortly after we joined in Philadelphia in September 1969 we had a gearbox explosion, or perhaps gearbox stripping it's teeth, (or something very similar) whilst on passage to New York and we subsequently spent several days alongside a berth in Brooklyn getting it fixed. This took about 5 days so obviously was not of the same magnitude as the Maihar incident.

Derek Roger
10th April 2008, 16:48
Tony I think your date is a year off my discharge book shows we joined in Sept 70 New York and I left Rotterdam 17 Feb 71 .The vessel was Mahsud .

I was 2nd Engineer and Alan Atack was Chief . There was no explosion on Mahsud . On a routine gear box inspection I found a crack in one of the teeth . Eventually using dye penetrant we found 4 teeth with cracks ; a Dr. Pinekempf
from Renk attended the vessel and we removed the sections of damaged teeth by careful pencil grinding . Luckily the damaged teeth were not adjacent to each other . The cause of the damage was found to be misalignment between the Main Bull wheel and pinion which was caused by the fact that the pinion outer clutch carrier had become slightly loose at the bolting interface . These bolts were re torqued and locked using new locking cups over the cap bolt heads .
Renk gave permission with Lloyds blessing to operate the gear box at 50 % load so we could proceed to Rotterdam and change the Main Bull Wheel .
We developed a " Clutch Drill " to ensure the teeth were perfectly meshed ; this consisted of after clutching in both engines one was declutched and its speed dropped below that of the clutched in engine and gear box such that the bull wheel was driving the unclutched pinion and the engine then clutched in again . This procedure was then repeated for the other engine .

Seems complex but only took a few minutes .

Another SN member Ray Charlton joined the ship in Philly as 5th engineer .

The 50 % gear box load translated to 70 % engine load and Lloyds had use alter the governor overload settings . we did a sea trial and proceed to Rotterdam where the Bull wheel was changed .

The "root Cause" of this problem ( the outer clutch carrier locking device ) was also the cause of the Maihar explosion in October of 71 where I was also 2nd Engineer . Thats another story which I have yet to post .


Regards Derek

Don A.Macleod
11th April 2008, 00:28
Tony/Derek, thought I'd get my own little bit in here!Tony did indeed join MAHSUD in Sep.69.I was on MAIHAR down in Oz at this time and don't recollect that they had problems in the states before heading for Japan but do know she had eleven blackouts crossing the Pacific (Alan was chief and not amused). I think that was the reason Geoff. Guest was in Yokohama.On the way up from OZ I was advised I'd be transferring to MAHSUD and you were there Tony(Watson Ross was old man).We had an uneventful return to the States except for rhat kettle!!
Then it was back to Japan where I was joined by Paul Geogeson for familiarisation of the ships, this may be the explosion you were thinking of Tony. One morning (we were Panama bound and on the starboard Alternator)
when there was a huge "bang" and blackout of course, I was close by in the fridge flat and felt the"shock", well when you get a deluge of salt water pouring on to a live 440v/750kw m/c what do you expect. It took us three days to get this charred mess up to the transporter flat for landing in NY for rewind. I left it to Paul to connect it up! as we left in Philly on 23Feb70.
When we heard about the gearbox problem Derek I used to think the kickback when the altenator blew up must have given the gearbox a good shake.I joined her in Rotterdam in April 71 after the gearbox was repaired and all seemed well until I left her in HK in October. Sorry about rambling on guys but Iget carried away and could write a book on my three years on those two ships but I enjoyed them. Regards Donald

Derek Roger
11th April 2008, 01:53
Thanks for that Don ; it explains Tony's thread .

The shaft Alternator Event would not have had any effect on the gearbox Don as the drive from the main engine was through a Vulcan coupling and the drive to the shaft alternator was direct via a connected quill shaft from the Vulcan coupling ( It would however explain why we had to change the Vulcan couplings as they were distorted past their limit ) The sudden shed of load from the shaft alt would have been seen by the coupling and main engine ; the back kick as you describe it .

The quill shaft which was directly connected between main engine via the Vulcan coupling to the shaft alternator passed through the gear box pinion ( Mounted on roller bearings ) The outer clutch carrier was bolted to the aft end of the pinion and created an over slung load ( there was no bearing to keep the aft end of the clutch carrier " in line " )

The outer clutch carrier was bolted to the gearbox pinion and when the clutch plates were hydraulically closed together the Drive to the Bull Wheel was effected . When de -clutched the shaft alternator was still direct driven but the drive to the Bull wheel was disconnected .

In the scenario you have proposed with the immediate shedding of the shaft alternator load ( about 350 KW max sea load if my mind serves me well ) and although the clutches were still "In " this potential shock load to the gear teeth was protected in 3 ways
1 by the Vulcan coupling itself which were heavy rubber elements .
2 By the coupling overload protection which caused the clutches to disengage in the event of overload .
3 By the response of the Woodward Governor ( Which was of a type with rapid response due to the fact we had shaft alternators )

A forth element existed in the control system which caused a rapid shedding of pitch of the KaMeWa propeller in the event of overload on a main engine .

Also of note is that the Gear Box was over designed with respect to the connected main engine load .

A sudden shedding of only about 500 hp ( only 5% of the total connected HP ) should have little or no effect on the gear box . The system was designed to operated under these conditions .

I will when I have some more time put in a thread about the Maihar Gear Box Explosion and as to the root cause / causes .

Renk re designed the aft end of the pinion by adding another bearing and adopting a new bolt locking device ( Which we initiated on the ship during repairs ) The net result was that the re design was never fitted ; we just used our own bolt locking system and continued with our " Clutch Drill " mentioned in an earlier thread and the system ran trouble free for the reat of the vessels working lives .

Clue the "root Cause " was the bolt locking device on the original design and the amount of allowable clearance on the pinion roller bearings . Free beer if anyone knows the answer before I post the Explosion .


Regards Derek

Tony Selman
12th April 2008, 17:37
Don, is correct in what he says and I have some recollection of all of those events but I am certain that there was some form of engine room/gearbox problem on passage from Philly to NY immediately after we joined in September 69. I am not sure even then that I could have described it to you adequately (certainly not up to Derek's standards) but I am certain it happened and we spent an extra 5 days in Brooklyn getting it fixed. I remember vividly being dragged out of my pit in the middle of the night to send a message to Brocks HO and getting through to Portishead Radio first time, which is not something that happened every time from the US coast, mind you I wasn't usually up at that time of night. We did have quite a lot of blackouts crossing the Pacific before Don joined (although not quite up to Lucigen standards) and it is possible that the problem between Philly and NY was a blackout but I have got it stuck in my mind it was some form of gearbox problem, but then I don't suppose we would have spent an extra 5 days alongside a pier in Brooklyn recovering from a blackout?

Derek Roger
12th April 2008, 22:49
On a lighter note during sea trials on Mahsud one of the engineers Alan Atack I think noticed an unmarked button adjacent to the controls and inquired as to its purpose . Geoff Guest was there as were all the test and trials team from the yard . Out came all the drawings and after much deliberation Geoff said well theres one way to find out !! " Engine room was put on stand bye " and the subject button pushed . Nothing happened so it was tried a couple of more times and then a Seward arrived somewhat out of breath and addresses the Captain " You Rang Sir ??? "

Apparently the Old Man had managed to get a freebe from the yard to have a call hooked up from the Bridge to The Galley . ( hence it was not recorded anywhere and there was no drawing .)

Happy Days

John Ringrose
2nd June 2008, 11:51
I sailed on the Maihar 2 in 1973 / early 74. George Symonds was the Old Man. Mate was some nutter from Port Line - Mike something or other. 2/0 was Tony May. For ever breaking down at that time. 2nd Eng was Dave Wiley who was with his wife Sue. 4/Eng was Mike Price also with wife Gill. Purser was Dave Mercer - should think he is long dead now he was alcoholic then.